THE WEBSTER CLAIMS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7830, 24 June 1909, Page 1

THE WEBSTER CLAIMS.

Per Press Association. , WELLINGTON, June 22. The claim for half a million sterling made by the United States Government against the New Zealand Government on behalf of a citizen named Webster (or his executors) is based on a very, very old story. The records of the Parliament of New Zealand show that Webster and his claims have been much m evidence since 1887. In that year a report on the bone fides of the claims was made by Mr (now Sir Robert) Stout, If the late eighties and , the early nineties the matter was again before Parliament at various times during six years, a record report being submitted by Sir Robert Stout m 1893. The records cov£r hundreds of pages. It is impossible ;to go into the whole of Webster's alleged transactions with the Maoris. The story furnished by the Press Association from Auckland is, m the main, correct, but a jfew extracts from Sir Robert Stout's opinions and the Parliamentary papers will serve to show the public that the greatest consideration was at all times extended to the-man who succeeded m getting the Senate of the United States to further his claims. Originally,,' the claim was for land or an indemnity; now it appears to have materialised into a definite demand for £500,000. On August 1, 1874, the Governor of New Zealand, m a despatch to , the Secretary of State for the Colonies, forwarded a complete history of: the transactions between the Government and Mr Webster, as well as the opinions of Mr G. M. (row £ir .Maurice) O'Rorke (Crown Lands Commissioner), and Dr Pollen (Colonial Secretary at ! the time). In the course of that despatch, after an exhaustive summary of the merits of the claims made, it was stated that "the most important point appears to be that his (Webster's) present claim should have been considered strictly as that of an American citizen. 1 The records show that he elected to have his claims referred to the Commission appointed for the purpose of adjudicating upon such claims to land not granted by the; Crown after he had been informed by the Governor that he could only consent to. their being laid before the Commissioners m the usual way if 'they were lodged as a British subject.' Mi Webster' indeed, made no such, explicit declaration but replied, I am told, after some hesitation, 'I wish my. claims, to be laid b?fore the Commissioners, and am willing to take my chances with all others.' He appeared and prosecuted his claims before the Commissioners. There is no record of his having made any protest ; against their awards, and he must be held to have accepted them, as he received, the Crown grants made m pursuance thereof, and sold or. mortgaged all the lands so granted. His claims were, m fact, treated with exceptional indulgence, and admitted to a larger extent than those of any othor individual." The voluminous records m the appendices appear to bear out. this positive statement. _ ' . After the seriate of the United | States had gone into Webster's case, it considered Jhat „ his ; claim was "founded on yustice," and resolved "that the President is requested to take such measures as, m his opinion, may be proper to secure a just settlement and final adjustment of his claim against.Great Britain growing out of the loss,of lands and other property m New Zealand of >vhich he had been deprived by the act or consent of; the British Government, and .to which he had acquired a title under purchases and deeds of conveyance from the native chiefs prior.;to February 6th, 1840, and prior to any right of Great Britain to the said islands." However, nobody appears to have considered the possibility of war'being resorted to as a means of settling the matter. Of the 500,000 acres originally claimed by Webster, 5000 were awarded to him personally, and altogether 41,924 acres to Webster and various parties acting conjointly with him at the time the purchases were made. Mr (now Sir) Robert Stout's report of 1887 concludes: "From a perusal of the documents I cannot but feel assured that the United States Senate will feel satisfied that Mr Webster has been treated \vith very liberal justice, especially seeing that the awards were made m his. favour, or m favour of his acknowledged assigns, of every single acre which the native owners admitted he had justly bought from them. More than this he could not have received, whether claiming as a British subject or as an American citizen." Again, m a report dated April 18th, 1893, Sir Robert Stout reiterated the opinions previously given by him m another report to Parliament. "The fact is," hesays, "that there was neither seizure nor sale by tho Government of New Zealand or Great Britain of a single acre ever claimed by Mr Webster. If the title of purchases of lands from the natives prior to the Treaty of Waitangi was not proved to the satisfaction of the various Commissioners who investigated the claims, or if the Crown grants were not issued, tho lands claimed and not awarded remained native lands— that is, the Government recognised that these lands belonged to the aboriginal inhabitants. If ,then, Mr Webster has any claim, it must be against the native owners who obtained all the lands which, though claimed, were not awarded to him." "It will be noticed," Sir Robert also remarked m this report, "that the (United States Senate) report concluded with a suggestion that if the Government of Great Britain refuses to consider Mr Webster's claims for reparation, special reprisals should be resorted to. lam not aware w.hfithr er it is usual m n'clopuiriejit; asMng for consideration of the claims of a citizen to threaten the Government to which such a document is addressed m such a manner. In private society m a civilised State it is not unusual to threaten your antagonist with revolvers ; and bowie knives, or even to state there will be an appeal to a judicial tribunal if your arguments are not listened to, and I would respectfuly submit that this threat of reprisals shows weakness on the part of the committee" (of the United States Senate which enquired into the matter). After that nothing further was heard of Webster's claims until the O^her day.,' >vhen it \yas pn.nounced that the Solicitor-General going Home to attend to a mysterious claim made against the country,